For the past generation, and while they have been endorsing the ideology of development, the leaders of most Pacific Island countries have also emphasised the importance of ‘culture’ and ‘tradition’ as the bases of national identity and the integrity of national institutions. The crucial role of culture is proclaimed in many national constitutions and the need for its maintenance is taken as a basic article of faith by many politicians (Henry, 1991; Somare, 1991), at least in their public utterances. Almost everywhere, native (or customary) land tenure is regarded as one of the cornerstones of national culture, in spite of the fact that what is now proclaimed as traditional may be different from what was customary in the nineteenth and, presumably, earlier centuries.

The case studies presented above show that many current land tenure practices run counter to what is said to be customary in appeals to ‘immemorial’ and unchanging tradition or to the law where land tenure has been codified. The discrepancies arise in part as consequences of growing population pressures, increased participation in wage labour, greater urbanisation, and the demands of cash cropping and commercial grazing. All create changes in the relative demand for and value of different pieces of land according to location and quality attributes related to the needs of new crops or animals or new types of land use. Land tenure practices have changed as a result, although there is often little public or political acknowledgement of the changes. New forms of socio-economic organisation have allowed or required some individuals to opt out of the older communally oriented forms of organisation.